"Voices Are Rarely Heard": Children Are Almost Never Interlocutors in Media, and Stories About Them Carry a Negative Tone and Violate the Code

(Source N1) The media are uninterested in children, and children’s voices are increasingly rarely heard. Those who do report on children as actors in society do so for sensationalism. The situation is particularly concerning on news portals, with only N1, Danas, and Politika not having violated the Code, according to the results of a CEPROM study. Journalists are sometimes afraid to use children as interlocutors, and in sensationalism they are a means towards profit—these are just some of the views expressed by those working with children and children’s rights.

“Media have the power to respect children and their rights, but also to stigmatize children… If they can be criminally responsible at 14, they can also express opinions,” said Jelena Žunić Cicvarić, Director of the Užice Center for Children’s Rights, during the presentation of the results of the study “Media Image of Children in Serbia 2025,” conducted by the Center for Media Professionalization and Media Literacy (CEPROM).

The general trend is that children are marginalized in the media, and this marginalization increases over the years, the study states. Each television station with a national frequency, in its central news programs, airs a feature about children on average only once every five days. Daily newspapers publish an average of 1.4 texts per edition, while online portals, despite having unlimited space, publish an average of 5.3 texts about children daily.

The study was conducted from June 1 to August 10, 2025, and covered nine daily newspapers (Politika, Danas, Večernje novosti, Blic, Kurir, Informer, Srpski telegraf, Alo, and Nova), the central news programs of five national TV stations (RTS 1, TV Pink, TV Prva, TV B92, TV Happy), and the 20 most visited portals, including N1.

“N1 One of the Few Media Outlets That Did Not Violate the Code”

Even when reporting on children, it is mostly in a negative context—about tragedies, accidents, and abuse that children experience, while their achievements are less frequently discussed. A striking 71 percent of analyzed texts on portals contained negative reports about children, the CEPROM study found.

Also recorded, and particularly problematic, was a record-breaking violation of the Journalists’ Code of Serbia. The portals that violated the Code the most were Republika, Kurir, Telegraf, Blic, Alo, and Informer. The only portals that did not violate the Code when reporting on children, according to the study, were N1, Politika, and Danas.

On portals, the Code was violated in every fifth text, and in daily print media in every tenth text. The study did not record any violations of the Code by national television stations during the analyzed period. TV features most often had a neutral connotation (preparations for school, high school enrollment, etc.). Television also had the fewest texts with a negative connotation compared to portals and daily newspapers.

In sensationalist reporting, children are also used as “bait,” as noted, because any incident involving children is exploited as a pretext for a story due to the special sensitivity of the audience. Media often, as stated, publish details that allow the identification of a child—photos of houses, information about parents, home addresses, or the school they attend.

Gordana Novaković, General Secretary of the Press Council, stated that reporting is sometimes not just sensationalist but that texts are even fabricated at times, citing an example from a media outlet whose name she did not wish to disclose. She mentioned that the Press Council received a complaint from parents of a child from the “Ribnikar” school who allegedly testified about the tragedy that occurred there, while the child, she notes, never actually gave such a statement.

“For tabloid editors, the most important thing is to have fewer violations than someone else, but when it comes to children, they show some willingness to cooperate. However, some are aware that someone’s suffering is just a pretext for profit,” she emphasized.

“Some Topics Are Particularly Sensitive – The Example of ‘Važne Stvari'”

The study “Media Image of Children in Serbia 2025” also shows that children rarely appear as interlocutors in the media, noting that “their opinions are not treated as important in the media space.” However, Klara Kranjc, editor-in-chief of “O Radio,” also points out that journalists are sometimes afraid to ask for their opinions.

“Journalists are afraid to use children as interlocutors. We had the example of the tragedy in Ribnikar, which all children felt, but we never asked them how they experienced it,” she stated, adding that parents, teachers, and instructors spoke on behalf of the children, but never the children themselves.

Marko Nedeljković, President of CEPROM and project leader, emphasized that the issue of children expressing opinions in the media is often sensitive due to the various reactions it provokes.

When asked by N1 portal how he would assess the statement of a child in the RTS program “Važne Stvari” about the student protests, which was later censored in the rerun, Nedeljković said that before commenting on this event, he had to consult with experts dealing with children, but stated that “it was good to hear what the child thinks about current events.”

“Nothing there was aggressive; the child’s response came spontaneously. All the events affected him too because he couldn’t go to school, so it concerns him,” he said, commenting on a clip from the show where the boy said that “students are fighting for justice and our future.”

Recall, this is not the only example of a child’s voice being censored for words about the current situation. One girl said she “wouldn’t live in Zrenjanin because there is no clean water there.”

The Director of the Užice Center for Children’s Rights also believes the child in this program was not exploited and cited guidelines that should be followed when considering a child’s opinion.

“One should consider what the interest of that child is at that given moment, whether the topic, directly or indirectly, concerns the child, and whether it is safe for the child—in terms of not damaging their honor, privacy, or reputation. Finally, there is the question of age—if they can be criminally responsible at 14, they can also express their views,” noted Žunić Cicvarić.

“Both Youth and Children Lose, But So Do Journalists”

Not only children but also young people are stigmatized, psychologist Ana Mirković points out, stating that traditional media do not create content for young people and thus alienate a large part of potential readers.

“Traditional media do not create content for young people, and when they create content about young people, they essentially do not know them. It’s not good for the media because they lose their audience, and it’s not good for the children themselves because information on social networks is often unverified,” she conveyed, emphasizing that she worked on a program to introduce “media literacy” for younger ages but “there was no interest in realizing that idea.”

CEPROM’s project “Media Image of Children in Serbia 2025” is being implemented as part of the broader project “Children’s Rights are Human Rights,” supported by the Delegation of the European Union and implemented by the Užice Center for Children’s Rights (UCPD).